Here are three good reasons not to vote for Republicans Michael Hicks and Debe Campos-Fleenor for the TUSD board. First, the two candidates bring a conservative mindset to a district that needs to be progressive and forward-looking. Second, neither is a strong candidate. Hicks has shown himself to be marginally qualified at best, and Campos-Fleenor hasn’t demonstrated any interest in learning about the intricacies of TUSD and public education, making her a blank slate for someone else to write on. Third, and probably most important, if both of them end up on the board, it would lead to a major shift in the 3-2 majority on close, controversial votes. Together, they would create a new majority with Mark Stegeman at its head, to the great detriment of the district. [Full disclosure: I’m a Democrat, in case there was any question about that, and I’ve already written about my support Adelita Grijalva and Jen Darland.]

Let’s start with the last point, the shift in the 3-2 majority if both Republicans are elected.

When partisans on both sides of the aisle look at the U.S. Senate races, they worry far less about which specific candidates are elected than about reaching the magic number of senators needed to give their party the majority. For Republicans, it’s all about picking up enough seats to reach 51. Democrats just need to hold onto 50 seats since Joe Biden can break the tie on close votes. The individual winners and losers are secondary to winning that one seat that puts your party on top.

Then there’s the U.S. Supreme Court. If the current court had one less conservative and one more liberal, crucial 5-4 decisions would have gone the other way, and the country would have taken a dramatically different direction on election financing, voter protections, health care and other issues.

Obviously, TUSD isn’t the Senate or the Supreme Court, so let’s move a few links down the food chain to the Jefferson County school district, the second largest in Colorado. The district’s school board made national headlines recently when it voted to monitor instructional materials to assure they’re sufficiently patriotic.

[The board] would establish a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with Advanced Placement history, to make sure materials “promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights” and don’t “encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”

It was a 3-2 vote made possible by a new conservative majority. And — this may be the most important part of this cautionary tale — the new conservative majority rode into office with the help of Democrats. Here’s how it happened.

The previous board supported the Gates/Murdoch “Big Database” company inBloom, hated by people on the right and left — including me on the left. I’ve written a number of posts about the evils of a huge, private, nationwide database like inBloom filled with detailed, intimate information about students. So when the conservative candidates vowed to keep inBloom out of Jefferson County, some Democrats said “Hell yes!” and voted for them, forgetting that when you vote in a conservative school board, you’ll likely end up with a right wing goodie bag filled with “patriotic” curriculum decisions, anti-teacher and anti-union votes, support for charters and vouchers and . . . you get the picture.

Would a TUSD board majority made up of two Republicans and the newly-minted Independent Mark Stegeman challenge the patriotism of the AP History curriculum? Probably not, though the Republican National Committee adopted a resolution condemning the AP course, saying it “reflects a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.” So who knows if a new round of curriculum wars will be part of the national Republican agenda? But there’s little doubt the district’s multicultural curriculum would be put under more intense scrutiny to make sure it doesn’t veer too far from conservative sensibilities, and the board’s stands on issues like student discipline, teacher salaries/benefits and the district’s relationship with the teachers union would undoubtedly take a conservative turn.

The thought of what a new board majority led by Stegeman, who is openly supporting (and less openly strategizing for) the Hicks and Campos-Fleenor campaigns, controlling crucial TUSD decisions would terrify me even if I felt the two were competent candidates, but their weaknesses make the reasons not to vote for them even clearer.

I don’t need to say much about Michael Hicks since people have had years to observe him as a board member. He seems like a nice, well-meaning guy who even casts votes I agree with now and then, but he simply doesn’t have what it takes to be in such an important position. His grasp of issues is superficial at best, which means he votes on complex issues without bringing the necessary insight or understanding to the table.

Based on everything I know about Debe Campos-Fleenor, she is woefully unprepared to deal with the kinds of decisions board members have to make. I listened to her during two debates, and I sat down and talked with her one-on-one for an hour in mid September. In all three situations, she came across as a blank slate who says she wants to do what’s best for children but has little idea what that means. When I asked her opinion on Common Core, she told me with an assured smile, it’s not really that big a deal, because you can pick and choose the parts of the curriculum you like. When I told her Common Core is a set of standards, not a curriculum, she looked surprised and thanked me for the information. I asked her about the controversy over the Mexican American Studies program a few years ago, something which someone who cares enough about TUSD to serve on the board should have been following closely. She said she couldn’t judge the program because she hadn’t read the curriculum. Her opinion on the current Culturally Relevant Curriculum? She said she’s heard there’s some controversy, but she didn’t know much about it. She would have to take a look at the curriculum. I asked who she supported for state Superintendent of Public Instruction, expecting she might tell me that was a personal decision she didn’t want to share with me, an answer I would have accepted. Instead, she said she hadn’t decided yet. That was after the primary race was over and the two candidates left standing offered a clear choice to any informed voter, especially a school board candidate who should care deeply about the future of education in Arizona.

The most recent incarnation of Campos-Fleenor’s website has been beefed up with all kinds of specific ideas and programs she supports. Did the ideas and information come from her? Did she go from a low-information, no-ideas candidate to someone who could put together a detailed press release and a list of priorities in a matter of weeks? It’s possible, I guess, but highly unlikely unless she was purposely sandbagging during the debates and our interview. More likely, the ideas were formulated by others. And that’s the point. When you’re a blank slate, you can be handed packaged statements and you can be “advised” how to vote without your own ideas getting in the way.

I imagine this post has reinforced some readers’ plans to vote for Hicks and Campos-Fleenor. For conservatives, the things that concern me are reasons to support the two candidates. But anyone who doesn’t want to see TUSD move in a more conservative direction should cast their votes elsewhere.

This article appears in Oct 9-15, 2014.

36 replies on “Michael Hicks And Debe Campos-Fleenor: Bad Choices For TUSD”

  1. Come on David this is ridiculous. We have seen what Ms Grijalva and her friends have done to TUSD. Are you new around here or what?

  2. What I get from this, is that Hicks is a great guy as long as he votes the way the writer wants him to or feels he should. So much for objectivity.

  3. David, I have never advocated anything remotely resembling: “establish a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with Advanced Placement history, to make sure materials ‘promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights’ and don’t ‘encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.’ This is fear-mongering.

    In fact, as you may remember, I voted against TUSD’s last economics adoption because (as I said publicly) I thought the book slanted too strongly to a free market viewpoint.

    I have, however, taken positions on myriad TUSD issues, over the years. If you wanted to raise accurate concerns, then you would explain why you disagree with those positions. Perhaps the reason that you do not is that many readers of this newspaper would agree with me in many cases. There are some exceptions, but most of the critical issues facing TUSD do not easily fit the convenient rhetorical categories of “left” and right.” Attempts to frame the TUSD election in mainly partisan terms do not, therefore, serve well either the readers of this paper or TUSD voters generally.

  4. Thank you for your diligence Mr Stegeman. If TUSD can not be turned around I would support closing it.

    I was going to say that this is lunacy. …and then I see it is a full moon.

  5. Wow David I’m not sure what to say about this one . You really did your research here ,Ha. Mark Stegeman has called for accountability again and again . The current budget issue , which Grijalva has blown off , was brought to light by Mike Hicks. Grijalva has rejected accountability and voted for her own political gain , her puppet parade simply follows. Wow this majority has done wonders, just look at the state TUSD is in thanks to them. I love your term Blank slate , you know so much about this because that’s what you are. You blindly follow Grijalva no matter what she does, simply because she’s a democrat. Mark Stegeman had the courage to move in another direction , instead of following party lines, do you have that courage? Don’t say that you support her because of her work on the board, that would show that you have no grasp on what it takes to be a board member. The criticism you have given of these two candidates is unwarranted , and shows your inability to be unbiased. I hope your blog encourages more to vote for Hicks and Fleenor , any intelligent, knowledgeable voter would.

  6. Not even the Tucson Weekly endorses Adelita Grijalva; in fact her candidacy was (strangely) ignored in the endorsements released this week. Not a word. As if she isn’t even running. Safier’s continuing voluminous diatribes against Stegeman, Hicks, and Campos-Fleenor are bizarre considering he has not discussed in any similar level of detail exactly WHY he endorses the TW’s “unmentionable” candidate, Grijalva.

    I’ve visited Campos-Fleenor’s “beefed up website” with all those “specific ideas and programs she supports.” Sure seems like a lot of sensible takes on the real issues facing TUSD wherever, from whoever, or however recently she came to the light.

    I’m still waiting to hear from Grijalva about her own positions on the same issues.

    Apparently she prefers to stand on her record.

  7. Mark, please read my paragraph beginning, “Would a TUSD board majority made up of two Republicans and the newly-minted Independent Mark Stegeman challenge the patriotism of the AP History curriculum? Probably not.” I referred to the Jefferson County situation as a “cautionary tale,” not as something that would happen exactly that way in TUSD. People who aren’t conservative should realize that if they vote for conservative candidates, either on your recommendation or because they are upset with some things going on in the district, they’re likely to get a board which makes conservative decisions on a number of issues, and they will very likely regret their votes in the future.

    I agree with you that school district-related issues don’t divide neatly along “left” and “right” lines. But in some areas, like curriculum and dealings with teachers and teachers unions, board members’ political leanings have a great deal to do with their decisions. That’s true in school boards across the country, and it would be true at TUSD.

  8. How is it a big deal if Stegeman backs two candidates he likes in this race? Grijalva is supporting Darland and she also endorsed Foster and Juarez when they ran. I find Stegeman to be a pompous, self-serving peacock, but he is well within both his rights and common political practice to lend his assistance to candidates he would like to serve with on the Board.

    Honestly, what has EITHER incumbent in this race done to warrant re-election? The last four years have been chaotic and dysfunctional within TUSD. One incumbent (Grijalva) has been a rubber stamp for the current superintendent and needlessly thwarted necessary reforms backed by his predecessor because they offended the interests of her political allies. The other incumbent (Hicks) has done little during his term to learn the operations of TUSD and has had an election-year conversion into a fiscal watchdog, which is not a role supported by his voting record. Both incumbents have also contributed to the poisonous, rancorous climate on the Board and within TUSD.

    Hicks and Grijalva have done their time and done their damage. Mindlessly voting against all incumbents is rarely a discerning or sensible voting strategy. However, in this instance it is what TUSD needs from the electorate so that it can bind up its wounds and regain its focus.

  9. Dear Mr. or Ms. Dump Michelita Hicalva, you have created what is possibly the best handle I have seen around here.

    Hey Rat T, someone just raised the bar!

    It’s also a very thoughtful comment, whether I agree or not, except for an issue I have with what you write at the beginning. I didn’t say, and I hope I didn’t imply, that Stegeman has violated some code by backing two candidates. It is well within his rights. But it’s important that people know he’s backing them, especially since he was very coy about it back when he had already contributed a total of $2,400 worth of in-kind contributions to their campaigns. And it’s important for people to understand that if both of them are elected, they will ally themselves with Stegeman, which will make a dramatic change in the kinds of decisions the board makes.

  10. David, for someone who prides himself on not being aware that TUSD only spent 49.2% of its funding in the classroom or had any idea how it spent the other 50.8% of its funding, you demonstrate a ton of chutzpah in criticizing others for failing to learn how TUSD actually operates. It is you who are clueless about the TUSD culture of insider dealing and putting the needs of adults far in front of the needs of students.

    As I have noted previously your inane endorsement of Grijalva despite her record of failing TUSD’s students and your childish attack on the TUSD administrators who criticized Superintendent Sanchez and his pet Board members for creating a culture of fear and intimidation in TUSD has brought your credibility on matters relating to TUSD down to negative numbers.

  12. The fact that Campos-Fleenor says she needs to read a curriculum before commenting on it does not show she’s a blank slate; it shows she’s intelligent, honest, and cautious. I have spoken with people who have worked with Campos-Fleenor, and they think it highly unlikely that she will mindlessly follow Stegeman (or any other board member) the way Foster and Juarez followed Grijalva.

    When voters look at the TUSD board and make decisions about which candidates to support, I suggest they try thinking of it the way a non-profit board thinks when it turns its attention to board member recruitment. You develop a matrix of skills covered by current board members and skills that need to be added to make the board function better as a whole. On the TUSD board, some of the critical skills involved in running a business and serving on non-profit boards – understanding good governance practices, ensuring transparency and accountability in an organization’s finances, leading a team of employees, managing a budget as it’s executed by a complex organization — are missing, so supporting Campos-Fleenor is reasonable. Some of the many skills and character qualities Betts Putnam-Hidalgo brings are also missing from the current board: she has a thorough understanding of progressive educational policy, a broad and diverse network in TUSD schools built by years of work as a volunteer and community rep, a collaborative leadership style, and a commitment to getting the issues surrounding the desegregation case properly addressed. Supporting Putnam-Hidalgo is also reasonable.

    No single board member is going to be able to run the board by themselves. What we need is a team that together covers all the bases and that, unlike the current board, is committed to working together in a professional and collegial manner to get students’ needs addressed. What will not be helpful for the district, in my opinion, is supporting (as Safier suggests) the two candidates who have the least to offer in breaking up the current dysfunctional majority: Grijalva, who has run it for the past year, and Darland, who is deeply entrenched in the same Adelita-Grijalva- and Ann-Eve-Pedersen-connected network that has not delivered good leadership for the district in the past.

  13. Since they’re Mark Stegeman’s choices, I say they are good choices. The only way to get TUSD out of it’s funk is to not have Adelita and her crowd running things. See how good a job they did in selecting an unexperienced ilprepared in Sanchez. Mark Stegeman is intelligent and correct on this one.

  15. Funny thing, the Star endorsements, like those of TW, ignore the candidacy of Adelita Grijalva. In the old days of the Soviet Union this was known as throwing someone into the scrap can of history labeled as a “non-person.” Odd given the number of years Grijalva has been on the board as a member and as president.

    Adelita who?

  18. You are voting for A Grijalva??? wow.. Enough Said. Definitely voting against HER Highness.. and FOR the conservatives.. otherwise, I am not voting for ONE MORE DIME for Tusd..

  19. The last thing we want in Tucson is accountability. Debe and Mike want to have an audit ! That’s just crazy. Why would we want to know where the money went and how it was misspent. Better to let sleeping dogs lie and our children languish in TUSD.

  20. I don’t get the unqualified support Grijalva seems to get from every member of the press. Is she buying you guys drinks every night?
    I’ve seen her in board meetings. She doesn’t seem involved. She does seem like a great behind the scenes operator when it comes to maintaining her power.
    But her tenure has been an unmitigated disaster. Between the disastrous MAS program, picking stupid fights with the legislature, tremendous and costly budgeting and contracting mistakes, failed override elections, failure to get out from under the apparently permanent deseg order, and probably a lot that I’m forgetting, TUSD has had more troubles than any school district I’ve heard of. And these are only the things that I think can be laid at the feet of the board that she controls. I don’t think all the problems of declining enrollment, school closures, teacher layoffs, and poor schools in general are really the board’s fault. Maybe the last one.
    So why do you continue to support Grijalva?

  22. Here’s what needs to happen with TUSD…..First of all… it is way to huge of a conglomerate…Divide TUSD into four areas..divide the funds according to the academic success of those school…thus dividing and lessening the powers at be…and than allow for all TUSD Parents to choose which schools they want their children to attend… Open enrollment at all schools at all districts..Then you will finally see to the welfare of the majority of our children, that they so well deserve. Nothing like an excited child in a classroom…..Super Supportive Parents..and an Equally Supportive School Administration…STOP the “Political” Agenda’s against our Children’s young minds, that do not line up with our American Values! Teach the ..Math, English, Science, Social Studies, Physical Ed, etc.. with higher thinking in mind..and keep the Politics out of our Classrooms! And each district has a choice to say the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America, if they choose to.. The pledge was , written by Francis Bellamy. ….Divorce the Political game and get back into the business of teaching our children once and for all…If certain ethnic groups wants to sue,because of curriculum restricts them from teaching their agenda, mandate it that law suits are not permissible..go to the other divided TUSD District…if you want an integrated Culture curriculum. TUSD is internally divided anyways and has been because GOD was taken out! ..so divide it district’s and TEACH!!…………….School Teacher : Miss Edna

  23. David’s opinion piece here saddens me. Not for any of the above mentioned reasons. It’s his actual writing that saddens me. Much like Rodger Whittaker on his last concert tour, David’s skillful use of the written word is slipping. While I often disagree with David’s liberal views, the artful use of language to drive home a point, is increasingly absent from his recent commentaries. Reading his pieces now is like watching Willie Mays in his last days with the Mets. Tired and worn out. The same old arguments, lacking their past fiery rhetoric. It’s time to hang up the cleats David. Take off the gloves old timer. Don’t take the path of other notables before you, Larry Holmes, Arnold Palmer, Jerry Quarry, Gordie Howe, etc.,. Put the tea kettle on David. Time for a long rest, old timer. Here, have another spoonful of this delicious applesauce.

  24. The current board:

    THE MAJORITY
    1 Grijalva (leads the liberal majority), 2 Foster (endorsed by Grijalva, follows Grijalva), 3 Juarez (endorsed by Grijalva, follows Grijalva)

    THE MINORITY
    1 Stegeman (former Democrat, now an “Independent,” leads the “conservative” minority) and 2 Hicks (follows Stegeman).

    One conservative member (Hicks) and the leader of the liberal faction (Grijalva) are up for re-election. Given the breakdown of the voting public, it seems likely that voters will elect one conservative candidate and one liberal one.

    On the “conservative” side:
    Campos-Fleenor is clearly a better bet than Hicks to increase the functionality of the board, and she has the business and non-profit board experience needed to contribute to improving the district’s financial management, which is desperately needed.

    On the “liberal” side:
    Darland was endorsed by Grijalva, and the two Grijalva-endorsed current board members (Foster and Juarez) are not up for re-election this term and will hence remain on the board regardless of the outcome of this election. That means that if Darland wins the liberal seat, there will be a three-person majority of Grijalva-endorsed candidates controlling the board. In politics, who has supported you publicly and the networks with which you are affiliated usually have significant influence on the policies you adopt as an elected official.

    So voters: don’t be distracted by the fact that the Tucson Weekly didn’t endorse Grijalva. The interesting question is: why did they recommend that voters “cast one vote, for Jen Darland”? Wouldn’t the result of a Darland win be that, in spite of recent scandals tarnishing the reputation of the Grijalva-led board majority, the board majority would remain firmly in the hands of a three person majority of Grijalva-endorsed candidates, i.e. the same political network that has led the board for the past year?

    Progressive-minded voters: If you like what’s gone on in the district during the past year and you want a solid block of three Grijalva-endorsed politicians as the board majority, vote for Darland and / or Grijalva. If you have some qualms about what’s happened during the past year, cast one vote: for Putnam-Hidalgo. Putnam-Hidalgo has rock solid progressive values and a great network both in the schools and in education advocacy organizations that will keep her well-informed about what’s going on at the “ground level” in the district. This is essential if meaningful reform is to take place. Also important to note: she is a committed supporter of financial transparency and accountability and she is not beholden to the network that has controlled the board during the last year. Both by temperament and in terms of her local relationships, she is capable of thinking and acting independently. Putnam-Hidalgo will be a reliable supporter of the policies and values needed to move the district forward.

  25. BSlap,

    None of the local press (with the exception of Safier) support Grijalva. The liberal/progressive press (TW and Daily Star) have studiously ignored her candidacy; in their eyes she is a non-person. Obviously the conservatives (ADI) do not support her either.

    It’s interesting that this thread began with the headline “Michael Hicks And Debe Campos-Fleenor: Bad Choices For TUSD.” Nothing there positive about Grijalva only another blind partisan attack on her opponents. I’d call this manipulative and shoddy but actually the intended result – garnering support for Grijalva – has misfired. Not one commenter has come out in favor of her re-election.

  26. Dartman, you mean I was once a cham-peen? Be still my heart. During moments of self doubt, I’ll say to myself, “You coulda been a contender.” But a cham-peen? Not in my wildest flights of fancy.

    Willie Mays. Larry Holmes. Arnold Palmer. Wow. I just wish you’d thrown in Muhammad Ali. Guess I gotta take what I can get.

  27. Rick, you should take a look at the purpose of my post. It was to discuss Hicks and Campos-Fleenor. But see the last sentence in the first paragraph? “[Full disclosure: I’m a Democrat, in case there was any question about that, and I’ve already written about my support Adelita Grijalva and Jen Darland.]”

    I already wrote that post, and I linked to it so readers could refer back to it if they wish. Isn’t the internet wonderful? I can simply put in a link to an earlier, lengthy post, instead of making this lengthy post even longer. I love these newfangled contraptions.

  28. Let’s not get off topic. Whether or not Safier is reaching his true potential for eloquence in his recent commentary is beside the point. The poor man is probably terribly stressed. Imagine how difficult it must be to have to serve as an apologist for the “power-that-be” in the district these days.

    RE the board elections:
    I don’t believe a Stegeman-controlled majority would be constructive, but the district does need reform. What reason do we have to believe that a Grijalva-endorsed majority of three (what we’d have if Darland gains a seat) would be well-positioned to get reform accomplished?

    My opinion: we need a bi-partisan coalition in support of reform and financial transparency. Board members in support of reform will be more effective if they have strong, broad-based and ethnically / socio-economically diverse local networks (not an Anglo liberal / east-side / Sam Hughes power base) hence my championing of Putnam-Hidalgo and Campos-Fleenor. If these two replaced Hicks and Grijalva, we might get the district moving in the right direction.

  29. Has Putnam-Hidalgo called for the removal of Grijalva from the Board; stating explicitly that she DOES NOT support Grijalva and her TUSD policies; including the hiring of Sanchez and her Mother-in-Law? Ladies and Gentleman, be careful of a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”

  30. Shouldn’t you post as “Think Strategery”? Betts is a dyed in the wool liberal. Your simply offering a suggestion that removes the current disgraced liberal Grijalva hegemony and replaces it with a more altruistic liberal hegomony. View some of her 2012 YouTube videos. Stop closing schools, reduce class sizes, re-instate and expand! the MAS curriculum, “link” the community to school sites by offering them more “fun” (?) movies, food, and “can we feed your kids”. Her position on increasing transparency is nothing more than a position. Hire an internal auditor. Then what? I had to look long and hard to find out how she proposed to pay for her bag of goodies. While I expected to find nothing, I did trip across a stated “pay for” idea of hers. ….From her 9/15/2014 blog post. “My proposal at that time was to try to solve the budget shortfall in a different way. Solar panels were one idea–thrown out at that time for not being cost effective. Another idea was to use the schools, or a wing of them, for some other use that might help the community.” Solar panels? SOLAR PANELS? YGTBKM. Reading her multiple blog posts she repeatedly and unabashedly admits the tremendous expense to accomplish her BHAG of reducing class sizes, but is unwilling to discuss the specific tradeoffs necessary to reach her goals. Even more disconcerting is the absence of any specific statements that suggest she would be willing to show leadership in reducing administrative costs. What we have in Betts-Putnam-Hildago is a fire breathing tax and spend MAS liberal. How does that work for a school district hemorraging students as a result of the social programs she champions?

  31. You write to endorse two of the worst, then you write to oppose two of the best.

    It has a tinge of “voting twice” to it.

    Once is not enough for outcome based voters.

  32. If we were honest…this TUSD Board has reeked since the advent of Joel Ireland and the pay to play mentality. Didn’t a brother receive cash for site selection?

    A union man

    Ireland, an Episcopalian priest assisting at St. Michael and All Angels’ Episcopal Church and an attorney who works for Goldberg & Osborne, came to the board backed by unions and worked for years to raise beginning teachers’ salaries and increase the wages of TUSD’s blue-collar workers.

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/12/16/105255-ireland-retiring-from-tusd-board-after-20-years/

  33. There are key reform issues in TUSD that both the “liberal” and “conservative” crowds can reach a constructive bi-partisan agreement on: reducing administrative costs, reducing class sizes in the lower grades (there’s solid evidence that the money invested here pays off in improved academic performance), insisting on financial transparency and accountability, cleaning up procurement processes, etc. Putnam-Hidalgo supports all of these reforms.

    I’m more of a liberal than a conservative myself on most topics, but I absolutely believe sober-minded financial management needs to be part of the skill set on the current TUSD board. This is one of the reasons I’d like to see Campos-Fleenor gain a seat together with Putnam-Hidalgo. Having served on a non-profit board that needed improvements in financial transparency and accountability and having seen which individuals on that board contributed most to moving things in the right direction, I expect that Campos-Fleenor’s business experience will be useful as the board confronts the problems TUSD is facing now.

    If there’s going to be a solution for TUSD, it’s going to come through bi-partisan coalition building and a professional and collegial atmosphere on the board. Putnam-Hidalgo is a good listener and a thoughtful, coalition-building liberal who does not close her mind to sound ideas originating on the other side of the political fence — nor do I believe she would demonize and exclude her colleagues on the board, who, whether or not she agrees with them, are elected officials who need to be granted a role in the collective planning and decision making that takes place in a well-functioning governing body.

  34. DS has to come on the comments section repeatably and tried to defend his article. One glaring mistake is to say the democratic party is progressive. Do you wonder why the press changed the colors that indicated parties. Rep. used to be blue. And rightfully so the dem. used to be RED. And DS still stands for Dumb S—.

  35. David, the purpose of this most recent blog Michael Hicks And Debe Campos-Fleenor: Bad Choices For TUSD:” was to trash Hicks and Campos-Fleenor not “discuss” them. Yes the internet is a wonderful thing,

    “Grijalva has been an effective member of the board during her tenure. I’ve agreed with most of the positions she’s taken, sometimes voting for the status quo, sometimes voting against it. Because she’s been on the board longer than her colleagues, she has more institutional knowledge than they do, which allows her to put current district issues into the context of past events and decisions. She clearly supports the superintendent she helped choose and wants to give him a chance to exercise his leadership.”

    This was your endorsement framed in a discussion of the need for balance between board members assuming the role of opposition micro-managers or a rubber stamp for the superintendent (Sanchez in this case). Longevity and institutional memory can be positive traits – or as often is the case Grijalva) -an impediment to necessary change. Think of the state legislature or the past board of PCC as examples of longevity and institutional memory and you will understand my point.

    Continually bashing Grijalva’s opponents on blindly partisan political grounds while not providing a substantive rationale for her re-election does not support her candidacy and if these threads are an indication have done more damage than good for her bid to remain on the board.

  36. TUSD is a failure. All you have to do is drive around town and see boarded up elementary schools, Wrightstown Elementary is a perfect example, and just a half mile up the road are two Charter Schools that are absolutely bursting at the seams. When citizens have a choice they choose ANYTHING but TUSD.
    It’s too bad that all communities, Washington DC anyone?, don’t have the CHOICE to reject the failing public school systems run by progressive liberals. Odd how they are so pro-choice when it comes to killing babies in the womb and not when it comes to educating those lucky children who managed to survive the abortion lobby!

Comments are closed.